Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons to ‘Fulfill T

As a man I have the right to go out every night and meet women, I then give them a false name and talk them into going back to my hotel room for some
fun. I talk them into and have unprotected sex with them and then I leave town, I go onto the next city and do the same thing. As a man I can have
hundreds of illegitimate children and not one woman could ever track me down and get me to pay child support or father the child. So what all of you
here, that are against abortion, are doing is allowing me to ruin hundreds if not thousands of womens lives because they can't get rid of the bastard
child I left in there fun box. Thats really brave of you guys... keep taking the high road women don't deserve choice anyway.

End hypothetical.

Now I ask one question, would you like this to happen to your daughter?

The problem with the way the law is today is that it does not take into consideration of what the father might want and the hypocrisy of the law.

And by that I mean if the baby is not wanted it is termed to be just tissue matter and can be aborted up into the third trimester when it is
definitely a person. If the mother does not want it is a fetus and if the mother wants it then it becomes a human baby not yet born and if the fetus
is killed in an accident then the person can be charged with the death of a baby.

Then there is the father side of the issue if he wants to keep the baby the mother can have an abortion and the father can’t do anything about it.
If the mother wants to keep the baby and the father thinks that it is a mistake then he is responsible for the child up to the age of 18. Well that is
my 2 cents worth.

Yes, let's make it all free.
As long as the doctors will perform it for free, I am ALL for it. As long as pharmaceutical companies will make the birth control pills free, I am
ALL for it.
Otherwise, download a how to on abortion or PAY for someone to do it and dispose of him/her.
Ugly huh? No uglier than abortion, dear.

You don't get it.

The expense of paying for kids who aren't "parented" - - - - far exceeds any expense of - - both preventative and aborted pregnancy.

Originally posted by guitarplayer
The problem with the way the law is today is that it does not take into consideration of what the father might want and the hypocrisy of the law.

My response to that is women have been told for centuries: "It is your fault for picking the wrong man".

If a man picks a woman who becomes pregnant with his child - - - and is willing to carry that child to term - - and give it to the birth father who
very much wants the child - - then he picked the right woman.

If the woman aborts the fetus with no concern for the sperm donor - - then he picked the wrong woman.

Originally posted by guitarplayer
The problem with the way the law is today is that it does not take into consideration of what the father might want and the hypocrisy of the law.

My response to that is women have been told for centuries: "It is your fault for picking the wrong man".

If a man picks a woman who becomes pregnant with his child - - - and is willing to carry that child to term - - and give it to the birth father who
very much wants the child - - then he picked the right woman.

If the woman aborts the fetus with no concern for the sperm donor - - then he picked the wrong woman.

I really have very little sympathy in this regard.

Choose your partner carefully.

If that was the case then there would be very little abortions they would be relegated to the rape and insest. But that is not the case women get
pregnate do not want the child and they abort it, plain and simply a trow away society.

If that was the case then there would be very little abortions they would be relegated to the rape and insest. But that is not the case women get
pregnate do not want the child and they abort it, plain and simply a trow away society.

I was responding to another persons responce to a statement I made and they basicly said in a perfect world when people had sex they would be able to
trust each other over the question of babies meaning if I was in a relationship with someone and they became pregnate we should of discussed what to
do about the child that is not born yet and if that was the case then most abortions would be left to the rape and incest part. So please tell me
where I don't make sense and I will see if I can clarify the misunderstanding. OK?

I haven't read all of the comments to the OP so if this had been repeated I will apologize now.

I am a woman. I am a single mother of two kids. I also believe women should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter what the
circumstance. While being a mother is rewarding it is a tough job to put it lightly. Motherhood is not for every woman or girl who may become
pregnant and should that happen any female should be given the right to abortion.

Yes, an unwanted child may thwart a young woman's chance to pursue her dreams. There does not seem to be a way to force a man to own up to being a
father if he chooses not to be even when the law states he must contribute to the child's upbringing at least financially... and in my case the man
(father) does not support me in any way financial or otherwise to raise my children therefore not suppressing his dreams to finish his education or
pursue whatever career choice he may have. And at this moment in time the law doesn't seem to be doing anything to hold him accountable though you
best believe I am accountable to the full extent of the law to care for my children or I should be found negligent, so why is he not?

My choices have been effected. I am not saying I regret having my children because that is so far from the reality, but the fact is my life is much
different than it would have been if I had not had children and does limit the things in which I can do while raising my children. Motherhood is
rewarding, but there are also many other things in life that are just as rewarding.

I know if I were to get pregnant right now at this moment in life I would be grateful for the option to have an abortion because that is exactly what
I would do. I choose wisely to protect myself from unwanted pregnancy but nothing is 100% safe so if I should get pregnant I would be very thankful
that the choice to have an abortion is available to me.

This doesn't mean in any way I do not value the life of a child or enjoy the lives of the two children I do have. One of my kids is a teenage
daughter and I thank the creator of the Universe that at this moment in time abortion is legal because I know if my daughter were to get pregnant I
certainly wouldn't want her having a child at her young age thwarting her chances at a life before children, to grow up and learn from her mistakes
before taking upon herself to raise a child.

I am thankful she would have the right to an abortion as well so she can continue with her education and what dreams she may have until a family is
what she desires and something she can mentally and financially handle as a mature grown woman.

Abortion is a right all women should have! As a woman I have the right to decide what happens to my body and how I take care of my body. I have the
right to not carry a fetus if I choose not to and the day this right comes to an end is the day of true injustice against women!

I was responding to another persons responce to a statement I made and they basicly said in a perfect world when people had sex they would be able to
trust each other over the question of babies meaning if I was in a relationship with someone and they became pregnate we should of discussed what to
do about the child that is not born yet and if that was the case then most abortions would be left to the rape and incest part. So please tell me
where I don't make sense and I will see if I can clarify the misunderstanding. OK?

Might help if you spelled pregnant correctly.

But even so - - - just because you discuss the pregnancy - - has no bearing on cases of rape.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
People who are anti abortion but are all for targeting alleged terrorists and instead hitting innocent civilians in the so called War on Terror baffle
me. This isn't targeted at any particular person who has or will post in this thread, but just generally speaking. If you feel even a tiny bit like
this implicates you it probably does, and you know who you are. It's like your beliefs have no basis in your own logical thought, but are instead fed
to you on a case by case basis to be regurgitated any time the issue arises.

The neocons talk about preserving life but if that baby grows up to be Muslim, then they are all for bombing the baby into oblivion. They should
really modify their slogan to be that abortion of white babies is murder. Abortion of brown babies is collateral damage and/or self-defense and/or
spreading freedom and democracy.

where did I not make sense? bottom line a fetus should be just that untill birth, a nothingness a peice of flesh. Discuss the peice of flesh if he
wants to keep it then he should pay for it and raise it. If she wants to keep it then she should pay for it. That simple. If they both want to keep
it then great. But the way it is now is the man has no say so over what is to be done with the fetus but the woman does it's her body I get that.

So I guess "far-right" to yo uis anyone who believes life begins at conception , so ok that is pretty typical. I guess Janet Napolitano might agree.
Also we wear Brooks Bros clothing and tote guns around.

That's not why I called you far-right. I called you far-right because you called
liberals socialist, but I digress.

Obama is full of it. Court case after Court case show that what he is saying is patently false. If a quadriplegic is raped by his nurse, and if she
becomes pregnant they will come after every penny(and refuse to prosecute the rapist) even if it results in the guy's death due to homelessness.

Heck if a 12, 9 or even 6 year old boy was raped, his rapist can still demand child support.

The law's in this regard are so messed up only an outright male hating bigot would ever try to claim that abortion "balances the scales".

But then again Obama did give half the stimulus to Radical Feminist's....

It makes me sad that one of the major issues in order to elect someone to office is their opinion to kill or not to kill, the unborn.

foetus

The word foetus (plural foetuses) is from the Latin foētus (“offspring”, “bringing forth”, “hatching of young”).[3] It has Indo-European
roots related to sucking or suckling, from the Aryan prefix bheu-, meaning "To come into being".

Ron Paul said something interesting, when he was in medical school he was taught when treating a pregnant women to remember there were two patient.

Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:

quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present
throughout this entire sequence, from conception to adulthood, and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination
of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Downs syndrome. Dr.
LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this
"is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual
has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is
scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of
our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and
straightforward matter-the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or
economic goals."

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, "Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert
witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when
life begins."2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the pro-life cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally,
"The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."3

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League
(NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty
thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson's study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the
conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he
was deeply troubled by his "increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths."4

In his film, The Silent Scream, Nathanson later stated, "Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply
another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to
inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time, Dr. Nathanson was an
atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts. www.humanlife.org...
Dr. Landrum Shettles was the attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York for 27 years. Shettles was a
pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His
intrauterine photographs of preborn c

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Obama - "Abortion Enables Our Daughters To Fulfill Their Dreams"
Obama's Daughter - "Daddy, what does that mean?"

Obama - "It means when you grow up never think about contraception, you can be as promiscuous as you want, this should be your dream"

Obama's Daughter - "But what about responsibility daddy?"

Obama - "Pshh.. I'm a constituational lawyer and now president of the U.S., what do I care about responsibility

"

Obama's daughter - "But i'm your daughter"

Obama - "stop talking, election time coming up, I need to pander to the mindless progressives"

um, what ? The vast majority of sexually active people regularly use contraception because, quite explicitly, they do not want to become
pregnant. The statistics will show that the vast majority of people/women are not using abortion as a means of primary contraception.

Originally posted by HIWATT
Obama: "Abortion Enables Our Daughters To Fulfill Their Dreams"

Really? How about the daughters that will never be born?

Genius. Really. The guy is sharp.

Thats what i was saying.
"Abotions enable our daughters to fulfull their dreams"

Well, generally speaking, if they were having unprotected sex (not always the case, mistakes happen), then you accept that responsibility. It
overrides everything at least until you give birth, and give the child up for adoption. Then you can go back to you 'dreams',
Frankly, most of the people i'm refering to (this is not the case everywhere, just from the people i know) their dreams are to continue to drink and
smoke, while being pregnant, and while still #ing anything that walks. Thats the extent of some peoples dreams.
Especially those doing it for welfare. I could kill some of these people. Sorry.

edit on 23/1/12 by AzureSky because: (no reason given)

Have you been pregnant before? I was talking with my mother about this the other day (I am a male, so I'm not sure how much I can actually add to the
debate as this is an experience completely beyond my comprehension) but even she, as a former nurse and a Christian woman (she's not 'hardcore' or
whatever the appropriate term is, but she certainly believes in God) and even she said that as a woman, the toll that pregnancy takes on the body and
life is seriously immense. It is no small undertaking to literally birth a human being. In her eyes, it was the lesser of all evils, given that life
in a world that didn't want you can be quite tough. Hell, even for those us whose parents did want us, life can be trying.

I would prefer that women keep their children to term and then give them up for adoption. I think that would be the 'best' for everybody. But I know
that realistically, that is just not going to happen, and that it is therefore incumbent upon us as a society to regulate this in a way that provides
the greatest utility for all of us and minimizes emotional distress or physical suffering. I suppose when a mother's life is placed in jeopardy by a
pregnancy, we have to ask whose life we value more. The living mother, or the unborn child, whose birth might well kill the mother and the
child. It's not a decision I would ever want to have to make, but equally its not a decision I'm going to make for other people.

With that being said however, I think beyond an early stage of pregnancy, the arguments in favour of abortion and women's rights become substantially
weakened, because the foetus comes so much closer to being a recognizable human being. I must also say, why the HELL was partial birth abortion ever
used in this country? I know for a fact (from a parliamentary report on the subject) that the procedure was very seldom, if ever, used in the UK, so
why in God's name was such an outrageously barbaric procedure permitted in the USA? Even if the baby was dead at the time or anaesthetised, the
method is so unbelievably barbaric. Thank God that that awful procedure was abandoned. Unless there is substantial threat to the life of the mother, I
do not support late-term abortions, simply because I think the harm outweighs the benefit.

Obama is full of it. Court case after Court case show that what he is saying is patently false. If a quadriplegic is raped by his nurse, and if she
becomes pregnant they will come after every penny(and refuse to prosecute the rapist) even if it results in the guy's death due to homelessness.

Heck if a 12, 9 or even 6 year old boy was raped, his rapist can still demand child support.

The law's in this regard are so messed up only an outright male hating bigot would ever try to claim that abortion "balances the scales".

But then again Obama did give half the stimulus to Radical Feminist's....

Stimulus went to SIECUS. I saw them bragging on their webpage. It also went to IT upgrades in businesses(mostly health clinics and hospitals) for
upgrades to health record databases. He certainly spread the wealth around.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.